The Wisdom of Lou....

[Voyager EMH]

Gave them all a go - not one of them was short.

 

[Backache]

Gave them all a go - not one of them was short.

And two or three lipped out,

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Gave them all a go - not one of them was short.

They all had a chance though. Right?

 

[bobmac]

I sent this quickly before going underground on the tube, but to expand upon it... Lou only talks on a statistical level. 'Never up never in' is an emotional statement. If you feel better putting one foot past than six inches short, because of that phrase, then that is an emotional response, but statistically you are not better off doing that - you still missed either way, and the end result is that you are further away from the hole. Those are the facts.

Statistically speaking, a ball that is rolling at a speed that will take it a foot passed the hole can either go in if on line or miss if offline.
A ball that is rolling at a speed that will come up short will never go in. That is also a fact.

 

[Orikoru]

Statistically speaking, a ball that is rolling at a speed that will take it a foot passed the hole can either go in if on line or miss if offline.
A ball that is rolling at a speed that will come up short will never go in. That is also a fact.

But you're talking about what ifs. Statistically you're describing two missed putts, which are of equal value. A ball that didn't go in will never go in.

He actually says "a lag putt.." in the post, so we're not talking about putts you expect to hole here. If your target is to put it two feet past then it stands to reason with a margin of error you will put plenty four feet past or more and miss the ones coming back. If your target is dead weight to the hole, you will leave some two feet short, some two feet long, but overall probably have less three putts. That's what the post is about.

 

[bobmac]

Gave them all a go - not one of them was short.

There is coming up short and there is being too aggressive. Sergio has always putted that way, a bit like Poulter.
Jack Nicklaus always tried to putt dead weight so it had a chance of dropping in from the edge.
As long as it goes in the hole, it doesn't matter if you ram it in or drop it in.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Gave them all a go - not one of them was short.

If only he had left that 1st putt to tap in distance

 

[RichA]

Neither is right or wrong. It just depends what your objective is when you play golf generally - not just putting.
I'm very much a Bazball golfer. It means I'll never win an order of merit but, on very rare occasions, something extraordinary happens (in my very small world). Shooting the lights out to win a board comp or going sub-80 means more to me than a 1.7 season putting average or achieving and maintaining a single figure handicap, neither of which I have the attention span for.

 

[Backsticks]

Every single putt in the entire history of golf that comes up short will never, ever go in.
If you keep coming up short, lengthen your backswing an inch but keep the same tempo

Its the simplistic but tru element that no short putts go in, that misleads golfers on how best to putt.

The fundamental goal isnt to maximise the chances of all putts going in, but to take the minimum number of putts. If the goal were the former, then sure, never be short is the priority. But if the latter, putting to centre the disperion on the hole, or very slightly beyond, is the better strategy to achieve that.

 

[Orikoru]

Its the simplistic but tru element that no short putts go in, that misleads golfers on how best to putt.

The fundamental goal isnt to maximise the chances of all putts going in, but to take the minimum number of putts. If the goal were the former, then sure, never be short is the priority. But if the latter, putting to centre the disperion on the hole, or very slightly beyond, is the better strategy to achieve that.

Exactly that - and as I mentioned, this post specifically talks about lag-putting.

Rotella makes a mockery of the 'never up never in' mentality in Putting Out Of Your Mind. Basically, if your target point is two foot past the hole, and you have dispersion of four feet either way, then you have a margin of error from two foot short to six foot past. Whereas if your target is the hole itself, your margin for error is now only four foot short or long. You'll make more three putts from the first data set because you have more six footers vs four footers. Pretty simple really. Your target weight should always be to simply reach the hole.

 

[CountLippe]

Its the simplistic but tru element that no short putts go in, that misleads golfers on how best to putt.

The fundamental goal isnt to maximise the chances of all putts going in, but to take the minimum number of putts. If the goal were the former, then sure, never be short is the priority. But if the latter, putting to centre the disperion on the hole, or very slightly beyond, is the better strategy to achieve that.

The ball moves more as it loses pace, so dead weight putts often miss on the low side, additionally any spin on the ball from an in perfect strike will reveal itself. This is where the 18' past was found to be a sweet spot. Having the skill to hit it 18' past but no more is worth its weight in gold.

 

[Orikoru]

The ball moves more as it loses pace, so dead weight putts often miss on the low side, additionally any spin on the ball from an in perfect strike will reveal itself. This is where the 18' past was found to be a sweet spot. Having the skill to hit it 18' past but no more is worth its weight in gold.

So you just play the putts with more break. I have countless breaking putts on my course. If you try and play more pace but still miss on the low side, that's a recipe for disaster as it can easily get six feet away from the hole or more. I tend to play more break than is necessary, and still at dead weight speed, as when you miss at least it's still moving towards the vicinity of the hole and leaves you more tap-ins.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

The ball moves more as it loses pace, so dead weight putts often miss on the low side, additionally any spin on the ball from an in perfect strike will reveal itself. This is where the 18' past was found to be a sweet spot. Having the skill to hit it 18' past but no more is worth its weight in gold.

Nobody has that skill though. @Orikoru has it right that if your target is always 18” past the hole. You will have a lot of longer putts coming back.

If lots of putts are missing on the low side, it’s because either the target was wrong or the start line.

And how do you put spin on putts? The ball rolls surely?

 

[Orikoru]

Nobody has that skill though. @Orikoru has it right that if your target is always 18” past the hole. You will have a lot of longer putts coming back.

If lots of putts are missing on the low side, it’s because either the target was wrong or the start line.

And how do you put spin on putts? The ball rolls surely?

There's a feller at my club who definitely slices his putts.

 

[Backache]

I suspect that as people join the thread and only read a few posts things can become confused. 18 inches past is said to be near the optimal for short to medium length putts as you get longer dead weight is a closer approximation to optimal.

 

[Backache]

Another thing is I suspect that for long putts unless you are actually recording your results you may find an attempt to hit it eighteen inches past may acutally result in a decent distribution . You want an equal distribution around the hole not to leave more short than long and I suspect for many, long putts are more likely to be short than long.

 

[Orikoru]

Another thing is I suspect that for long putts unless you are actually recording your results you may find an attempt to hit it eighteen inches past may acutally result in a decent distribution . You want an equal distribution around the hole not to leave more short than long and I suspect for many, long putts are more likely to be short than long.

Not sure I agree. I think if my mentality was to hit it past the hole, I'd overdo that quite a few times and put it too far past. Overall as well - nothing to back this up apart from memory and general feeling of course - but I think on average when I putt long, the distance is greater than the ones I leave short. As in, I can easily put it 6-8 feet past the hole when misjudging the slope or speed, but much less often do I leave it 6-8 feet short - unless the greens are just incredibly slow that day for example.

 

[Backache]

Not sure I agree. I think if my mentality was to hit it past the hole, I'd overdo that quite a few times and put it too far past. Overall as well - nothing to back this up apart from memory and general feeling of course - but I think on average when I putt long, the distance is greater than the ones I leave short. As in, I can easily put it 6-8 feet past the hole when misjudging the slope or speed, but much less often do I leave it 6-8 feet short - unless the greens are just incredibly slow that day for example.

It probably varies between individuals.I have worked a fair bit on my speed control, though I haven't recorded the results overall I feel my distribution is a lot tighter but suspect being a little longer would be optimal for me. I probably leave more putts short than putt them past.

 

[Orikoru]

It probably varies between individuals.I have worked a fair bit on my speed control, though I haven't recorded the results overall I feel my distribution is a lot tighter but suspect being a little longer would be optimal for me. I probably leave more putts short than putt them past.

Depends what you're used to as well. Some of our greens are lethal in summer, so I've been conditioned not to play any putts too long lest I watch them roll off the front edge and back to the fairway.

 

[sjw]

If we accept that it hasn't gone in - I'd rather be six inches short than two foot past, because the next putt is easier. So he is correct.

Personally I don't go for the "never up never in" thing, or the attitude of having a "free go at it" when it's for a point or a half in matchplay.. usually those statements precede somebody pelting it ten foot past with absolutely zero chance of dropping. Just try and play the correct speed to reach the hole no matter what. Even at 6 inches short you were closer to getting it right than 2 foot long.

This bit in bold made me chuckle, because it's so true